wind & hydro energy feasibility study for the yurok tribe · 2016. 1. 8. · status report on yurok...

Wind & Hydro Energy Feasibility Study

for the Yurok Tribe

DOE Tribal Energy Program Review Meeting

Award #DE-FG36-07GO17078

October 27, 2010 Presented By: Austin Nova, Yurok Tribe

Jim Zoellick, Schatz Energy Research Center

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www-fp.mcs.anl.gov/multiscale-workshop/DOE-logo.gif&imgrefurl=http://www-fp.mcs.anl.gov/multiscale-workshop/&h=1937&w=1942&sz=65&tbnid=PohJldhlYrQJ:&tbnh=149&tbnw=150&hl=en&start=4&prev=/images?q=DOE+logo&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&sa=N

Background/Location

Located in Yurok

northwest Reservation

corner of Straddles the

California lower stem of

the Klamath

River, 2 miles

wide and

44 miles long)


Background • Largest Indian Tribe in California

• Traditional livelihood on the Yurok Reservation is based upon subsistence harvest of salmon on the Klamath River


Background

• A large portion of the Yurok Reservation

remains unelectrified.

• However, a power line extension project that is

currently underway will

eventually serve the

majority of the upper

Reservation.


Background

• Previous DOE funded work done for the Yurok Tribe by the Schatz Energy Research Center examined energy needs and efficiency opportunities, and showed that wind, hydro, biomass and solar energy resources are available on the Reservation.

• Solar is appropriate at the facility / household scale.

• Wind, hydro and biomass may also be suitable at a village scale or for sale to the grid.

DOE/NREL


Project Overview Goals & Objectives:

• Assess the feasibility of developing hydro and wind energy

resources on the Yurok Reservation

• Identify and assess two hydro sites and one wind site using

detailed, site specific information

• Identify preferred, feasible project(s) and associated economic opportunities, identify path forward for project development

Project Team:

• Yurok Tribe (Planning, Environmental, and Fisheries Departments)

• Schatz Energy Research Center

• Humboldt State University (Engineering & Economics Departments)

Project Schedule:

• Start Date: October 2007

• Initially a 2 year project, extended to 3.5 years


Progress Year 1:

• Selected project sites • Specified and obtained data monitoring equipment • Filed NEPA EF1 Environmental Checklist Year 2:

• Installed stream gauging stations • Began collecting stream stage and discharge data

• Erected 50-meter MET tower (provided by NREL loan program) • Began collecting wind speed and direction data Year 3:

• Continued collecting wind and hydro resource data

• Removed 50-meter MET tower • Conducted wind and hydro resource assessment • Conducted preliminary assessment of grid infrastructure • Conducted preliminary assessment of energy sales opportunities • Obtained generalized cost data, developed energy generation and

revenue estimates, performed preliminary economic screening


Power Line Extension

• Last substation in Hoopa, 15-30 miles away

• Distribution lines @ 12.5 kV • 3-phase to Martin’s Ferry Bridge • Single-phase from that point on • Preliminary estimate = 500kW max,

needs further assessment

• Examining cost of 3-phase upgrade

Last substation

3-phase

1-phase


Site Selection - Hydro • Nearly 50 creeks enter Klamath River within Reservation boundaries

• Key site selection criteria included: - hydropower potential (flow and head)

- potential impacts to anadromous fish populations (shorter steeper

drainages with natural fish barriers preferred) - impacts to cultural or sacred sites - proximity to electric grid or remote village loads - land ownership and road access

• Identified a few candidate streams and then chose two final sites


Site Selection - Hydro

Electrified Area

Tribal Community

Planned

Electrification


Hydro Site

Selection

Pecwan

Creek

Ke’Pel Creek


Site Selection - Hydro

Ke’pel Creek

Pecwan Creek


Stream Gauging Station Installation The Yurok Tribe Planning and Environmental Departments

collaborated with SERC engineers to install the gauging stations.

Ke’pel Creek Pecwan Creek

Ke’pel Creek


Stream Flow Measurement

Ke’pel

Creek

Ke’pel Creek

Pecwan

Creek


Stage Discharge Curves

Pecwan Creek

Ke’Pel Creek


Methodology

• Two years of stage and precipitation data collected for Pecwan Creek and approximately 1.5 years of stage data for Ke’Pel.

• Twelve years of precipitation data available from nearby Turwar Creek.

• Precipitation data from Turwar correlated with Pecwan (assume to also apply at Ke’Pel).

• Army Corps’ HEC-HMS rainfall-runoff model used to model flows. Calibrated to 1.5-2 years worth of collected data.

• Calibrated HEC-HMS models used to generate flow estimates for 12 years covered by Turwar precipitation data.

• Flow duration curves developed based on 12 years of simulated flows. Adjusted for intake point higher in watershed.

• We will be performing a sensitivity analysis based on long-term precipitation data (~100 years) that is available from a nearby

monitoring station.


Methodology – Rainfall Correlation


Ke’Pel Hydrograph


Pecwan Hydrograph


Estimated Flow Duration Curves 1999-2010

Ke’Pel Creek

Pecwan Creek

Sized for 60% exceedance

flow = 25 cfs (gross) Sized for 40% exceedance

flow = 20 cfs (gross)


Energy Generation Potential – Preliminary Design Specifications

Pecwan Creek Ke’Pel Creek

Powerhouse

Intake

Proposed

Power Line

Extension

Intake

Powerhouse

Cultural Site

Proposed

Power Line

Extension

560 ft

head

800 ft

head

Gauging Station Locations


Energy Generation Potential – Preliminary Design Specifications

Pecwan Ke’Pel

Gross Head 560 800

System Efficiency1 60% 60%

Min. Bypass Flow 3 cfs 3 cfs

Max. Usable Flow

(net)

20 cfs 15 cfs

Nameplate Capacity2 500 kW 500 kW

Ave. Annual Capacity

Factor

83% 57%

1. Per DOE Microhydropower Handbook, Vol. 1, 1983

2. Maximum nameplate capacity estimated to be 500 kW.

Power line extension serving this area will only be a single-

phase 12.5 kV line. Turbine-generator quote from

Dependable Turbines Ltd., BC, Canada.


Energy Generation Potential


Preliminary Economic Analysis

Pecwan Ke’Pel

Contract type SRG QF SRG QF

LCOE $0.041/kWh $0.061/kWh

NPV (3%) $10.6 M $7.0 M $5.4 M $3.4 M

IRR 13% 11% 9% 7%

Discounted

Payback Time

10.7 yrs 13.1 yrs 18.5 yrs 21.8 yrs

• Installed system cost based on data from KEMA, Oregon Office of Energy, RETScreen and others. Assumed $4500/kW of installed capacity and

$50/kW-yr fixed O&M

• Revenue estimates based on two different power purchase contract mechanisms: Qualifying facility (QF) contract prices or feed-in tariff prices using

the small renewable generator (SRG) PPA*

• Assumed 50 year project life. Projected future energy prices based on correlations with the expected price of natural gas per EIA projections.

* SRG rate available for projects up to 1.5 MW.


Site Selection - Wind • CA Energy Commission (CEC) and NREL data

characterize the area surrounding the Yurok

Reservation with class 1 to 4 wind power ratings (“poor” to “good” on a 7-point scale)

• Key issues regarding wind power siting: - adequate resource, economic viability

- access to the electric grid or proximity to remote village

- environmental & cultural impacts

- land ownership

- road access


Site Selection - Wind

Wind Speed Classes

in the Vicinity of the

Yurok Reservation

Electrified Area

Planned

Electrification

Key Potential

Monitoring Sites


Wind Site

Selection


Wind Site Preparation The site was

significantly wooded ...

… and required

substantial clearing.


MET Tower Installation

Lifting begins.

Tower assembly.


MET Tower Installation

The team celebrates.

The tower going up.


Methodology

• One year of wind speed and direction data were collected at the site (10 minute averages).

• Data were screened and analyzed to characterize resource.

• Explored the ability to extend the data record using a correlate and predict methodology. Longer term records are available at two local

sites within 10-20 miles (wind speed at 5 m). Due to complex terrain

the correlation is too weak to be useful (≤ 0.36 correlation coefficient).

• Examined power production potential based on 11 different turbine power curves (120 kW to 2 MW range).

• Examined the revenue generation over a 50 year period (two 25 year turbines) for both the QF and SRG rates.

• Assumed installed cost to range from $1800 to $2000/kW, with annual O&M costs = 1-2% of total installed cost (per Rigauld, Louis, Halus Power

Systems personal communication).


Wind Resource Data - Wind Speed at 50 m

Average Monthly Wind Speed at 50 m

Annual average

wind speed =

11.3 mph

(5 m/s)

Wind Power

Class 1 to 2


Wind Resource Data – Wind Speed Distribution at 50 m

% o

f hours

Annual average

wind speed =

11.3 mph (5 m/s)

Wind Power

Class 1 to 2

Wind Speed (mph)


Wind Resource Data - Wind Direction at 50 m


Turbine Characteristics and Expected

Capacity Factors

Turbine

Description

Model # Nameplate

Capacity

(kW)

Hub

Height

(m)

# of

Turbines

Capacity

Factor

Americas Wind Energy 54-900

AWE 54-900

900 75 1 21.0%

Nordic N1000 N1000 1000 70 1 16.7%

Unison U57 750kW

U57 750 68 2 26.3%


Preliminary Economic Analysis

QF Rate SRG Rate

Turbine LCOE NPV IRR NPV IRR

Low Installed Cost Estimate ($1700/kW)

AWE 54-900

$0.062/kWh $1.3 M 5.9% $3.1 M 8.8%

N1000 $0.155/kWh $1.2 M 4.2% $4.2 M 6.8%

U57 $0.099/kWh $3.9 M 7.8% $7.6 M 11.0%

High Installed Cost Estimate ($2000/kW)

AWE 54-900

$0.084/kWh $0.4 M 3.8% $2.1 M 6.5%

N1000 $0.210/kWh -$1.0 M 2.1% $2.1 M 4.6%

U57 $0.134/kWh $2.3 M 5.5% $6.1 M 8.5%


Preliminary Results and Conclusions • Pecwan Creek hydropower project

Preliminary economic assessment indicates this project looks most favorable, entire project (intake and powerhouse) can likely be located above the lower limit of anadromy

• McKinnon Hill wind power project Wind resource is marginal at best (Class 1 to 2), 3-phase turbines would require 3-phase line upgrade, also potential issues with a nearby cultural site and proposed project to introduce California Condors

• Ke’Pel Creek hydropower project Ke’Pel Creek hydro resource is not as robust, smaller watershed, low flows in summer would likely suspend power generation, economics do not look as favorable, limits to anadromy are less well defined, likely difficult to site entire project above limits to anadromy


Next Steps (through March 2011)

• Identify preferred alternative and refine economic analysis, conduct sensitivity analysis (resource, economic parameters, etc.)

• Refine assessment of grid interconnection and energy sales opportunities

• Conduct preliminary environmental assessment and assess permitting requirements

• Develop business plan and financing options, identify path forward

• Identify key stakeholders and outline a community outreach and education plan

• Provide training/professional development to Tribal staff & government


Thank You


Background/LocationProject OverviewProgressPower Line ExtensionSite Selection -HydroStream Gauging Station InstallationStream Flow MeasurementStage Discharge CurvesMethodologyMethodology – Rainfall CorrelationKe’Pel HydrographPecwan HydrographEstimated Flow Duration Curves 1999-2010Energy Generation Potential –Preliminary Design SpecificationsPreliminary Economic AnalysisSite Selection -WindWind Site PreparationMET Tower InstallationMethodologyWind Resource Data -Wind Speed at 50 mTurbine Characteristics and Expected Capacity FactorsPreliminary Economic AnalysisPreliminary Results and ConclusionsNext Steps (through March 2011)

wind & hydro energy feasibility study for the yurok tribe · 2016. 1. 8. · status report on yurok...

Documents